Απο το κεφάλαιο 6.
(Καλέ θεέ των Πειρατών, σε παρακαλώ, ας έχουμε διαβάσει τα προηγούμενα 5 κεφάλαια)
Αντιγράφω τα σημεία που μου άρεσαν
herefore, legitimacy in the decision making of the swarm comes through the fact that people are volunteers in the first place and choose to be part of the swarm, with all the values that come with it.
The process of voting creates losers.
So, in effect, there are two good ways to resolve conflicts in a swarm.
The first is organizational, and means that we negate the possibility of one person determining what another can do in the first place. Nobody gets to tell anybody else what to do. This is the norm for a swarm. Some people call it a “do-ocracy.”
The second effective method is a consensus-making decision process where everybody can veto the way forward. This method is much more costly, but can (and should) be used in rare and carefully selected scenarios.
“democratic legitimacy” is a contradiction in terms in a swarm organization. The process of voting actively reduces the legitimacy of decision making and involvement, and should be avoided as much as possible.
influence is achieved by individual leadership and individual appreciation — if you think something needs to be done, you just do it, without asking anybody. If other people think that your initiative is good, they will join in of their own accord. If not, they go elsewhere.
I solved this by establishing the already-mentioned three-pirate rule immediately, which was later set in stone as a core organizational principle in the Swedish Pirate Party. As I explained it then, people didn’t need to ask permission, and the concept went beyond that: they were specifically banned from doing so. Their own judgment was the best available in the organization for their own social context, and they were required to use that judgment rather than aspiring to hide behind somebody else’s greenlighting.
Asking permission, after all, is asking somebody else to take responsibility — no, accountability — for your actions
For if it doesn’t matter how many safeguards you put in place against PR gaffes, there is no point to bother with such safeguards in the first place. Instead, you can focus on optimizing the swarm for speed, passion, and mobility, and we can communicate to the swarm that mistakes will happen, and when they do, we fix them, learn from them, and move on.
When forming a swarm, everybody is venturing into unknown territory. By definition, it’s a trial-and-error venture. Everybody is breaking new ground in changing the world in a way that has not been tried before — both on the individual and the organizational level.
The conclusion here is that you must allow things to be tried. The good stuff won’t appear if you don’t allow the bad stuff to be tried, too. You only know which is which once they’ve had a chance to work out.
Για το πως λύνονται οι διαφορές διαβάστε όλο το "THE MAGIC OF THE CONSENSUS CIRCLE" και να το δοκιμάσουμε live, γιατί μόνο έτσι γίνεται.
Συνεχίζεται...
]